Basic Math For Academics Part II

Posted on February 11, 2015 by Tony Heller

If the adjusted temperatures double the warming trend, the net adjustment can not be described as cooling.

gissfiga2002-2014 (4)

ScreenHunter_7032 Feb. 10 20.54

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Basic Math For Academics Part II

  2. markstoval says:
    February 11, 2015 at 9:20 am

    “the net adjustment can not be described as cooling.”

    Sure it can. It is done all the time. It just can not be described as cooling honestly. (and honesty is the main problem in all this)

    Reply
  3. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    February 11, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    If you want to see the net adjustments relative to the raw data, and how much the adjustments change the trend, you have to compare the raw data with the data after adjustment. You are not doing that. You are comparing two graphs after adjustments.

    Reply
    • Stark Dickflüssig says:
      February 11, 2015 at 5:07 pm

      If you want to discuss what Goddard is talking about in this post, you ought to discuss what Goddard is talking about in this post, rather than something that he’s not talking about in this post. If you want to talk about something that Goddard is not talking about in this post, you should use words that indicate you’re not talking about what Goddard is talking about.

      Reply
      • Jan P Perlwitz says:
        February 11, 2015 at 5:27 pm

        He is claiming this:

        “If the adjusted temperatures double the warming trend, the net adjustment can not be described as cooling.”

        The conditional statement is formally correct with respect to its logic. However, the comparison between the two graphs doesn’t show the net effect of all adjustments on the temperatures. The comparison doesn’t allow the conclusion that the condition is actually fulfilled. If you want to know how much the net adjustments change the warming trend you have to compare the raw data with the data after all adjustments have been applied.

        Does anyone claim that the net adjustments decreased the trend over the whole period, compared to the trend from the raw data, calculated from the meteorological land stations only?

        Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 11, 2015 at 5:14 pm

      Steve has done that too. You walked in on the middle.

      Also Steve’s work on the fraudulent adjustments has been validated by two separate analysis. You can go dig them out.

      With luck we will get to see You Mr. Perlwitz and all the rest of your lying buddies behind bars some day real soon.

      Do you think we can get Accomplice before the fact on murder charges for all those poor people that died of fuel starvation in the UK and elsewhere? Climate Nuremburg trials? HUMMMmmm

      Reply
      • gator69 says:
        February 11, 2015 at 5:42 pm

        It is disgusting to see public servants hawking their pseudoscience for profit, and worse.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          February 11, 2015 at 5:48 pm

          Just think gator, if we strip the ill-gotten gains from all the ClimAstrologists and the rest of the public servants and cronys involved in the CAGW fraud we can probably pay off the public debt completely.

          I am sure there are some politicians left who would find that attractive.

        • gator69 says:
          February 11, 2015 at 5:53 pm

          Because of the multiple roles individuals play in their daily lives, they inherently possess many different interests and loyalties. At any given time these interests may compete. Such conflicts are a part of life and are unavoidable. Public officials, as stewards of the public trust, are required to put the public’s interest before their own. Impropriety occurs when an officeholder, faced with conflicting interests, puts his or her personal or financial interest ahead of the public interest. In the simplest terms, the official reaps a monetary or other reward from a decision made in his or her public capacity.

          http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introduction/conflicts-of-interest.html#q1

          Leftists write their own ‘ethics’.

        • Gail Combs says:
          February 11, 2015 at 6:56 pm

          Gator, I really do not think too many here realize who Jan Perlwitz is.

          NASA scientist Jan Perlwitz publicly warns global warming skeptics: ‘I shoot you dead’

          A NASA GISS scientist has left a public comment warning skeptics he will “shoot you dead.”

          Perlwitz is employed as a modeler at NASA GISS. He can be found in the NASA directory here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jperlwitz.html

          Here is [the] complete NASA Perlwitz comment from the website Watts Up With That:

          Jan P Perlwitz says:
          July 9, 2013 at 9:31 pm
          Allencic had a wet dream in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359319 — God help us from these fools who claim to be climate scientists. When this finally blows up and the public realizes how badly they’ve been had you might want to invest in pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers.

          [NASA’s Perlwitz]: “If you are dreaming about pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers against climate scientists, bring it on. I shoot you dead.”

          End Perlwitz comment

          #

          Perlwitz made his comments in reaction to a skeptical scientist being disenfranchised.

          Background info: Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia…

          Real sweetie isn’t he?

        • Jan P Perlwitz says:
          February 11, 2015 at 7:14 pm

          Gail Combs writes:

          Gator, I really do not think too many here realize who Jan Perlwitz is.

          NASA scientist Jan Perlwitz publicly warns global warming skeptics: ‘I shoot you dead’

          Marc Morano’s pants are on fire. I did not make such a statement directed against “global warming skeptics”. Instead, the conditional statement that I made was directed against one individual that fantasized about a scenario in which climate scientists will be lynched.

          In my world, articulating lynching fantasies against a group of people is hate speech.

          Yes, I lost my cool that day, when I read that comment by the individual. What does this make me?

          What is your problem, Gail Combs? Are you planning on lynching climate scientists?

        • Gail Combs says:
          February 11, 2015 at 8:14 pm

          Perlwitz, You might be forgiven if you were ignorant of the fact that ‘Global Warming’ at the end of the Holocene interglacial is impossible. However you hung around WUWT enough to be well aware of A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records by Lisiecki & Raymo

          Even if the Holocene is not at or near glacial inception as they conclude, the “current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr.”

          The Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). So the next glaciation is over due by about 200 years thanks to the Modern Grand Solar Maximum. That Solar Maximum has now ended.

          CO2 forcing from zero ppm to 400 ppm is 32 to 44 W m–2 [cf., Reid, 1997]. and all but 5 to 6 W m–2 of that forcing occurs in the first 200 ppm CO2 (modtran) That means modern civilization is responsible for at MOST a forcing of ~5 W m–2

          NOAA gives the calculated solar insolation in June at 60°N

          Holocene peak = 523 Wm-2
          ………………………….……..decrease = 47 Wm-2
          NOW = 476 Wm-2
          … …………………..………. decrease = 12 Wm-2
          bottom last ice age = 464 Wm?2

          So the earth is much closer to the solar insolation during glaciation than it is during an interglacial and all that puny ~5 W m–2 or less can possibly do is keep the earth from nose diving into full glaciation (Ruddiman hypothesis) Although given the 300 glaciers starting in Scotland, the record snow in North America and Japan, and the snow in Africa with Greek islands buried under 6½ ft of snow we may be privileged to witness a glacial inception. I understand it only takes two decades.

          So not only are you a traitor to your country you are also a coward looking after his own hide while insuring others do not have a chance to survive the coming cold while you are PAID to give honest scientific data.

          In other words I find you beneath contempt.

        • Jan P Perlwitz says:
          February 11, 2015 at 11:50 pm

          Gail Combs,

          “NOAA gives the calculated solar insolation in June at 60°N

          Holocene peak = 523 Wm-2
          ………………………….……..decrease = 47 Wm-2
          NOW = 476 Wm-2
          … …………………..………. decrease = 12 Wm-2
          bottom last ice age = 464 Wm?2

          So the earth is much closer to the solar insolation during glaciation than it is during an interglacial and all that puny ~5 W m–2 or less can possibly do is keep the earth from nose diving into full glaciation (Ruddiman hypothesis)”

          You are comparing the wrong things. You are comparing the globally averaged radiation change from CO2 with the insolation changes from the changes in the Earth orbital parameters at only one latitude. The insolation changes at 60°N between glacials and interglacials is not the change in the total energy input from the sun for the whole planet due to the cycles in the Earth orbital parameters.

          The main effect of the changes in the Earth orbital parameters (the so-called Milankovitch cycles) is to redistribute the energy input between the latitudes and the seasons. The globally and annually averaged change in the energy input due to the Milankovitch cycles between glacials and interglacials is much smaller. It’s smaller than 0.5 W/m^2 (Hansen et al., 2008, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal_1.pdf). In comparison, the globally and annually averaged radiative forcing change from CO2-doubling is about 3.7 W/m^2.

          Given that the globally and annually averaged Milankovitch forcing is smaller than 0.5 W/m^2, the temperature changes between the glacial and interglacial climate states can only be explained with strong positive feedbacks in the climate system.

      • Gail Combs says:
        February 11, 2015 at 7:31 pm

        No Perlwitz, I just want to see the people like you who have cause the deaths of tens of thousands and the waste of billions if not trillions of dollars brought up on trial.

        I want traitors like you who aid those whose goal is the collapsing of the US economy to be fully exposed to the light of day.

        And if you and your fellow traitors have your way and succeed in causing the complete collapse of the energy grid on the eastern seaboard, I want to make sure when the blacks that Obama, Holder and the rest have stirred to a fever pitch start looking for a target that YOU not some innocent is in their sights.

        It is know as Karma and I am hoping you have it heaped upon your head in full measure.

        Reply
  4. Gail Combs says:
    February 11, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    While Boston and New England brace for more snow and frigid weather, accumulated snow in the main streets caused traffic paralysis in Egypt. Alexandria Port Authority announced the closing of the ports of Alexandria for the second consecutive day.
    http://www.youm7.com/story/2015/2/11/??????-????-?????-??????????-????-?????-?????????/2063093#.VNtgh-4vwV0

    http://img.youm7.com/images/NewsPics/large/120157102342.jpg

    GEE isn’t it too bad the climate is busy showing that the ClimAstrologists are lying fraudsters.

    Reply
  5. gator69 says:
    February 11, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Gail says: … you are PAID to give honest scientific data.

    From my understanding he is paid to play with models. You know, the kind that have zero predictive abilities, and simply scare tax money from the trusting public.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 11, 2015 at 8:36 pm

      Sounds like a good reason to cut all funding to NOAA, GISS, NASA and all Universities.

      If they can no longer can be trusted to be neutral and give honest scientific data, and the evidence is piling up that they can’t, time to cut the funding.

      Heck time to cut funding across the board because the bureaucracy is no longer doing its job.

      http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2109855

      Reply
      • gator69 says:
        February 11, 2015 at 8:48 pm

        Not all of NASA is bad. The solar team has done some great work in spite of the political pressure from above, and then there is my dear brother.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          February 11, 2015 at 9:28 pm

          So?

          It doesn’t mean the funding should not be cut the deadwood and the frauds and scamsters cleaned out.

          Every single part of the government could use a good house cleaning!

          …The size of the underground economy is understandable when one considers that median family income taxes have increased from $9 in 1948 to $2,218 in 1983, or by 246 times. This is runaway taxation at its worst.

          Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90 percent of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000…

          Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

          * One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.

          * Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.

          * With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government….
          http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

          That is from thirty years ago in 1984 under Reagan and the waste has just gotten much worse.

          Despite what Perlwitz might think I do not say these things lightly or without a lot of thought. But of course you know that by now.

        • gator69 says:
          February 11, 2015 at 9:50 pm

          I’m all for cutting deadwood. Starting with climate change research, as it pertains to CO2.

  6. Colorado Wellington says:
    February 11, 2015 at 9:41 pm

    I remember the WUWT thread. It was enlightening about the mindset of global warming activists in academia. For those who don’t know what happened:

    In response to Anthony’s 2013 post Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia, Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz demonstrated his take on the burden of proof question with this introductory comment (earning himself a moderator’s reprimand):

    Jan P Perlwitz
    July 9, 2013 at 4:44 am

    For what reason should one believe a single word that comes out of the mouth of Salby?

    [wouldn’t your keyboard time be better spent pointing out his lies rather than asking, even rhetorically, for others to prove he is telling the truth? . . . mod]

    After that, the quarrelsome Doctor erected a strawman by wondering why ‘almost all of the “skeptic” crowd’ on the site accept Salby’s claims, implicitly endorsed the treatment of Salby and Carter, accused Anthony of intimidating a commenter, had an extended all-day argument with Anthony and others, got snipped for accusing someone of lying, snipped for accusing someone else of dishonesty, snipped for refusing to answer a question, etc., etc.

    Somewhere in the middle of the fracas a commenter made an analogy to Salby’s treatment and speculated about the upcoming response of the public as well as where smart money should go:

    Allencic
    July 9, 2013 at 8:39 am

    I suppose I’m not the only one who finds this way too similar to Germany in the 30’s blackballing (or worse) those scientists who believed in “Jewish Physics” who didn’t toe the Nazi party line. God help us from these fools who claim to be climate scientists. When this finally blows up and the public realizes how badly they’ve been had you might want to invest in pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers.

    In response, the irritable Doctor—who I think bickered with just about anyone who disagreed with him—posted towards the end of the day:

    Jan P Perlwitz
    July 9, 2013 at 9:31 pm
    …
    If you are dreaming about pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers against climate scientists, bring it on. I shoot you dead.

    Anthony banned him for good but allowed his final comment:

    Jan P Perlwitz
    July 10, 2013 at 3:15 am

    Mr. Watts, since when is the announcement of armed self-defense, in the case that motivated anti-science fanatics among your devote follower herd becomes violent against me and my colleagues is a threat? Isn’t the right to armed self-defense one of the basic principles of your country? You are growing a quasi-religious cult here. I consider it very possible that some “skeptic” fanatics are going to use violence against people and institutions, equally motivated, for instance, as religious fanatics are attacking abortion clinics. It has not been the first time that someone expressed his wish of violence against me or my colleagues on your blog. One example in the past, for instance, was someone named Robert E. Phelan. But be happy, you have your pretext now to make the ban finally offcial, after you and your intellectually challenged moderator friends hadn’t really found any good one before, so that you had to retract your previous one, combined with your pathetic attempt to blame me for it. So, bye, bye, then. I have played enough with you and the other science haters on your junkscience blog.

    He got this response:

    Anthony Watts
    July 10, 2013 at 8:08 am

    Note: above Mr. Perlwitz makes an exit statement at 315AM: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1360237

    I decided to allow it, because he’s blaming our deceased moderator Robert Phelan who cannot defend himself while at the same time suggesting all manner of derogatory labels for skeptics.

    Ask yourselves: “is this the behavior of a professional scientist”?

    ———-
    Check for yourself here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia

    Reply
  7. Neal S says:
    February 11, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    So let me get this straight. Allencic warns Perlwitz of what the public might do and then Perlwitz turns around and writes the following threat “If you are dreaming about pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers against climate scientists, bring it on. I shoot you dead.” So Perlwitz reaction to what he imagines someone else is thinking is to threaten them with death.

    Now I certainly won’t go around physically attacking climate scientists, but if I should see Perlwitz in danger, I don’t think I would go out of my way the slightest bit to defend him from others.

    Reply
    • Jan P Perlwitz says:
      February 11, 2015 at 11:03 pm

      “So Perlwitz reaction to what he imagines someone else is thinking is to threaten them with death.”

      Your knowledge of the English language seems to be deficient, since you clearly don’t understand the semantics of my statement. I challenged the individual “to bring it on”, if it dreams about lynching climate scientists, i.e., any reaction from my side would require that the individual took action first. No action, no reaction. I would be fully within my right to self-defense against the aggressor in this theoretical situation.

      Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 11, 2015 at 11:34 pm

      Let’s see:

      In the UK Energy bills have doubled since 2005

      2008 – 27,480 excess winter deaths in England and Wales from Fuel Poverty
      2009 – 36,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales from Fuel Poverty
      2010 – 25,400 excess winter deaths in England and Wales from Fuel Poverty
      2011 – 25,700 “excess winter deaths”
      2012 – 31,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales from Fuel Poverty
      2013 – 18,200 excess winter deaths in England and Wales from Fuel Poverty
      2014 – 27,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales from Fuel Poverty
      ___________
      191,580 total deaths.

      That does not include the 2.23 million children England living in fuel poverty with 1 in four Mums turning off the heat to feed the kids This results in twice the risk of respiratory diseases, quadruple the risk of mental health problems.

      One study has estimated that biofuels could be causing as many as 192,000 excess deaths per year. said Goklany IM. Could biofuel policies increase death and disease in developing countries? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2011; 16: 9–13.

      Indur Goklany in looking at the daily death reports found excess winter deaths are more than triple the number killed on the road.

      The statistics indicate that:

      For the 10-year period, 1998-2007, Australia had excess winter deaths of 6,779 per yr out of a total of 131,613 deaths per yr (avg.) This works out to 5.2% of all deaths per yr (on avg).
      For the 10-yr period, 1999-2008, NZ had excess winter deaths of 1,542 per yr out of a total of 27,792 deaths per yr (avg.) This is equivalent to 5.5% of all deaths per yr (on avg).

      The excess deaths in winter are roughly more than 4.5 times (Australia) and 3.75 times (New Zealand) the annual road toll.
      link

      Then there is the Bio-fuel idiocy.
      Over 9 million people die worldwide each year because of hunger and malnutrition. Of those over half are children with 5 million deaths. The food crisis of 2008 drove an additional 100 million people into poverty. Biofuels forced global food prices up by 75%—far more than previously estimated—according to a World Bank report. The USA supplies most of the export corn and a lot of the export grain. Over a third of US corn is now used to produce ethanol; about half of vegetable oils in the EU goes towards the production of biodiesel. (Vegetable oils like Palm Oil that have caused the cutting down of rain forests.)

      So how many death per climate scientist is that? a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand?

      Nope, I wouldn’t cross the street to help a climate scientist.

      Reply
      • Dave N says:
        February 12, 2015 at 12:38 am

        “Nope, I wouldn’t cross the street to help a climate scientist”

        To be fair, many of them are OK; it’s a sad few that are given credence and little to no accountability that is ruining their image for all of them.

        It’s easy enough to tell them apart: the bad ones ignore relevant questions, or attempt to distract by discussing something else. Paul Homewood experiences that first hand; all the time.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          February 12, 2015 at 12:59 am

          OK, Dave,

          I will give you that. I saw a lot of it in industry.

          First there are the guys that keep their heads down, try to do the job and bring home a pay check. Then their are the Rump kissers with no morals who will lie at the drop of a promotion and if someone gets hurt or killed due to their actions it was just bad luck nothing to do with them.

          Remorse? They never heard of the word.

          Then there are the real heroes who rather be able to look themselves in the eye and are willing to put honesty and integrity before a pay check. Salby and Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels and Dr Gray are a few examples, Perlwitz isn’t even worthy enough to lick their feet.

        • Jan P Perlwitz says:
          February 12, 2015 at 3:40 am

          Tim Ball? Isn’t this the one who cited from Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and said that Hitler was right?

        • Colorado Wellington says:
          February 12, 2015 at 4:14 am

          Ist Herr Doktor Perlwitz existentiell verzweifelt? Verspürt er eine Sehnsucht über den Österreichischen Gefreiten zu sprechen, die ihn innerlich zerreißt?

      • There is no substitute for total victory. says:
        February 12, 2015 at 3:08 pm

        Oh come on Gail, surely you would spit on a climate scientist if his face was on fire?

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          February 12, 2015 at 3:46 pm

          No I would not since I believe in the rule of law

          Since I do not have any first aid training I should not do any first aid. As a lab manager I could get in trouble with the law (and the company) for handing out an aspirin for a headache or a bandaid for a cut. We even had to have the fire blankets removed from the aid box in the lab.

  8. Gail Combs says:
    February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am

    No, Perlwitz, I am not a ‘hater’ I am also not a Christian so I see zero usefulness in not calling a spade a spade.

    I am listing FACTS. I am saying I want you and your buddies to STAND TRIAL for the damage you have done just like I want any criminal to stand trial and be punished.

    The scam is known.

    The data has been uncovered.

    If you and your buddies did not have powerful political friends you would be flipping burgers…. if you were lucky. If we are lucky the switch in climate will be so swift and so evident that your powerful political friends will decide to cut their losses and leave your rump hanging in the breeze for the mob to take their anger out on.

    Here you do not have your buddies Zeke and Mosher busy obfuscating the truth. You do not have a niave and trusting Anthony Watts willing to swallow the tall tales they spin. Instead you have someone who has the knowledge, training and experience to uncover the lies.

    If you do not like the fact we see you as you really are – LEAVE.

    Reply
    • Jan P Perlwitz says:
      February 12, 2015 at 4:12 am

      Gail Combs,

      “If you and your buddies did not have powerful political friends you would be flipping burgers”

      Right, the omnipotent conspiracy.

      “If we are lucky the switch in climate will be so swift…”

      How do you imagine that is going to happen? Have you already drafted an amendment to change the law of physics? Like energy conservation? Ted Cruz may be a willing to bring that in.

      “…for the mob to take their anger out on.”

      I’m sure you would love some lynching against climate scientists, even if you don’t want to dirty your own hands. Just a reminder: There is a right to self-defense.

      “Instead you have someone who has the knowledge, training and experience to uncover the lies.”

      I almost spillt my drink right now.

      Yeah, that must be it. You have the “knowledge” and the “facts” on your side. That must be the reason why you are hiding in your parallel universe bubble of some obscure blogs, where you mutually give confirmation to each other how right you were, and where you are dreaming about jailing all those evil climate scientists.

      In the meantime, while the dogs are barking, the caravane of science moves on.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        February 12, 2015 at 12:15 pm

        Dude, I just went through several years of trying to get the VERY corrupt legal system to do something as simple as prosecuting some thieves. No luck even though a cop caught one of the thieves with the semi truck he stole from me in his possession. Of course being a big contributer to the Democratic party sure helps in situations like that.

        After not one but seven such examples You get the picture. One incident with another eye witness, was the shooting of a neighbors house with the shots just missing a two year old little girl. The shooter was positively identified and other witnesses stating she had a grudge and was bragging she was going to shoot up the house. You would think it would be an easy case. NO, never even made it to court. She then a few years later killed my next door neighbor. Again nothing was done. Finally after several of those types of incidents you realize the law in the USA is very very broken.

        Heck Heartland could not even drag Peter Gleick into court after he publicly confessed to fraud!

        As far as hiding, no I am not hiding. I am making very very sure the inner city blacks are aware of JUST WHO is responsible for their electric bills skyrocketing and WHO is responsible if the lights go out. It is lots of fun watching them suddenly ‘Get it”

        May your well earned KARMA visit you real real soon!

        Reply
        • Jan P Perlwitz says:
          February 12, 2015 at 12:49 pm

          Gail Combs,

          “May your well earned KARMA visit you real real soon!”

          That would be the day, about which Allencic and you have been fantasizing, the day when “this finally blows up and the public realizes how badly they’ve been had” and then “the mob” comes for me and my colleagues, “to take their anger out” and does the lynching. Right?

  9. R. de Haan says:
    February 12, 2015 at 3:31 am

    I think Perlwitz has left the building.

    You’ve put up some nice arguments Gale, hitting the nail right on the head.

    You’re a hell of a lady and i love you for the effort.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 12, 2015 at 3:39 am

      Thank you.

      At this point I am really fed up with people like Perlwitz who think they deserve respect while they are slowly gutting you with a dull knife. I figure it is about time some one let these sociopaths know we are fed up.

      I really would like to drag their rumps into court. I am hoping Mark Styen gets a really great judge that tosses Mikey Mann in Jail until he coughs up all the information requested via discovery. That is the only way he will ever cough up the damming evidence.

      Reply
    • Jan P Perlwitz says:
      February 12, 2015 at 4:14 am

      R. de Haan,

      “I think Perlwitz has left the building.”

      Yeah, Gail Combs self-deluded ramblings have really scared me away.

      Reply
      • Marsh says:
        February 12, 2015 at 4:00 pm

        No, you are the one deluded Jan ; much of what Gail stated makes sense. Since you are so smug & arrogant, just try visiting a place like Australia & see what they will do with your CC agenda ! The World is moving on from this CC farce and people like you will become a non event like Y2k ; no less ridiculous. Just by chance, were you on that “Ship Of Fools” that went to Antarctica a year back ; you certainly fit the mould!

        Reply
  10. gofer says:
    February 12, 2015 at 3:48 am

    Here’s an idea. Why not just put one station in each area, one for New England, one for the South, one for the Midwest, one for Northwest, one for Southwest……..then just krieg everthing from those?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *